Crocker v. Ingersoll Engineering & Constructing Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur J. Tuttle, Judge. Action by the Ingersoll Engineering & Constructing Company against Martin Crocker! There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Per curiam
A general statement of the facts’here involved will be found in our opinion in Ingersoll Co. v. Crocker, 228 Fed. 844, 143 C. C. A. 242, and need not be here repeated. After that opinion was filed, the suit at law therein referred to proceeded to trial in the court below, resulting in a judgment which awarded to the Ingersoll Company the purchase money it had paid Crocker, and interest, and from that judgmeñt the present writ of error is prosecuted.
[1, 2] 1. A re-examination of the chief and underlying meritorious question has not convinced us that it was mistakenly decided upon the former…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Watrous v. AllenMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Clark v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Simis v. . McElroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Barnard v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Pratt v. EbySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.